IRJET- A Research on Comparing the Effect of Seismic Waves on Multistoried Buildings with & without Shear Wall and Flanged Concrete Column

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
p-ISSN: 2395-0072Volume: 05 Issue: 12 | Dec 2018 www.irjet.net
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 CertifiedJournal | Page 718
A RESEARCH ON COMPARING THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC WAVES ON
MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS WITH & WITHOUT SHEAR WALL AND
FLANGED CONCRETE COLUMN
Mr. Ankur vaidya1, Mr. Shahayajali sayyed2
¹M.tech-student, Dept. of Civil Engineering & G.H.Raisoni University, Saikheda, chhindwara (MP),India
2Asst. Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering & G.H.Raisoni University, Saikheda, chhindwara (MP), India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:- The stability and stiffness of any structure is the major issue of concern in any high rise buildings. Shear walls are
structural members which resist lateral forces predominant on moment resisting frame. Shear walls are most preferred
structural walls for earthquake resistance. This research is related to comparison of shear wall type structure with moment
resisting type of building. In the seismic design of buildings, reinforced concrete structural walls, or shear walls, act as major
earthquake resisting members. Structural walls provide an efficient bracing system and offer great potential for lateral load
resistance. The properties of these seismic shear walls dominate the response of the buildings, and therefore, it is important to
evaluate the seismic response of the walls appropriately. The present study states three type of models, moment resisting frame
i.e. model 1, Shear wall building concentrically located along X- axis on outer periphery of building i.e. model 2, and Concrete
column flange concentrically located on outer periphery along the X-axis i.e. model 3. Models of the three structures with same
loading were created on STAAD-Pro and were analyzed and further they where compared for their suitability. For 10 storey
building and 3 bays along X-axis of 4m each and 4 bays along Z-axis of 4m each were considered and loads were applied as per
the IS specifications. The analysis was conducted as per the specifications of IS standards IS 456, IS 875, IS 1893, IS 13920. From
the result it is seen that there is decrease of approximately 10% in Lateral storey shear and Base shear when the moment
resisting frame was introduced with shear wall. Thus the model 2 and model 3 possessed 10% less lateral force and base shear
as compared to the model 1. Also the results of Axial force, bending moment, Node displacement were found satisfactorily
less than the moment resisting frame. If cost is been compared, then model 3 can be stated as economical in all sense since for
the same configuration and load itgreater stabilityandstiffness aschecked fromthe node displacement results.
Key Words: Seismic Waves, Shear wall, Without-Shear wall, flanged concrete column & STAAD-Pro.
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquake never kills people, the weak structures do. Earthquakes are vibrations or oscillations of ground surface caused
by temporary disturbance of the elastic or gravitational equilibrium of the rocks at or beneath the surface of the earth. This
disturbances and movements cause elastic impulses or waves. These waves are known as seismic waves. Based on the peak
ground acceleration or movement there are certain zones of the earth, named as seismic zones. In India there are four
zones, II, III, IV, V – last one being the most devastating.
In most instances only the structural response to the horizontal components of ground motion is considered since
buildings are not sensitive to horizontal or lateral distortions. In virtually all earthquake design practice the structure is
analysed as an elastic system; it is acknowledged that the structural response to strong earthquakes involves yielding of the
structure, so that the response is inelastic. The effect of yielding in a structure is two- fold. On one hand, stiffness is reduced
so that displacements tend toincrease. The properties of a building are lateral stiffness, lateral strength and ductility.
Shearwall is a structural member positioned at different places in a building from foundation level to top parapet level,
used to resist lateral forces i.e. parallel to the plane of the wall. Shear walls resist lateral forces through combined axial-
flexure-shear action. Earthquake resistant buildings should possess, at least a minimum lateral stiffness, so that they do no
swing too much during small levels of shaking. Moment frame buildings may not be able to offer this always. Also, structural
walls help reduce shear and moment demands on beams and columns in the moment frames of the building, when provided
along with moment frames as lateral load resisting system.
Shear walls should be provided throughout the height of buildings for best earthquake performance. Also, shear walls offer
best performance when rested on hard soil strata. Properly designed and detailed buildings with shear walls have shown
very good performance in past earthquakes. Shear walls provide large strength and stiffness to buildings in the direction of
their orientation, which significantly reduces lateral sway of the building and thereby reduces damage to structure and its
contents. Since shear walls carry large horizontal earthquake forces, the overturning effects on them are large.
Thus, design of their foundations requires special attention. Shear walls in buildings must be symmetrically located in plan
to reduce ill-effects of twist in buildings. Under the large overturning effects caused by horizontal earthquake forces, edges

of shear walls experience high compressive and tensile stresses. To ensure that shear walls behave in a ductile way,
concrete in the wall end regions must be reinforced in a special manner to sustain these load reversals without losing
strength. Based on materials used for construction shear walls are classified as follows,
A.RCC Shear Wall
B.RC Hollow Concrete Block Masonry Wall
C. Steel Plate Shear Wall
Shear walls with openings are not generally preferred because they are unable to transfer loads and generally fail. Shear wall
with openings are also known as coupled shear wall. Flanged concrete column is similar to coupled shear wall, onlychange is
the depth of beam may be restricted and attempts are made in this research work to check the strength of flanged concrete
column with the regular solid shear wall. Model of a flanged concrete column is shown in figure 1. Flanges in the column can
be on single side of column or on both side of the column. These flanges can be assigned on three mutual sides of the
column. The main purposes of providing such flanges in column are to reduce joint displacement and to prevent plastichinge
formation near the support. This will help in improving the stiffness in the structure and provide access to the building
from the opening.
Figure 1:- Column with flange or Flanged column
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY
Analysis of any structure for resisting earthquakeis the basic need of this study. In this project analysis of a seismic resistant
structure is a need of concern, and thereby establishing a comparison between structures with normal shear wall with
flanged concrete column. In high rise structures most adoptable type to resist earthquake is to provide shear wall.
Basically many analysis and design software’s canbeadoptedtoanalyzeanddesignany earthquake resistant structure.
The structure selected for this project is a simple office building (Banking hall type) with the following description as
stated below.
Table -1:
PROBLEM STATEMENT FOR THE PROJECT MODELS
Sr.
No.
Description of structure Values
1 Number of bays in X direction and its width 4bays of 4 m each
2 Number of bays in X direction and its width 4bays of 4 m each

3 Number of bays in Z direction and its width 3 bays of 4 m each
4 Story height 3 m each
5
Number of storey (Excluding the plinth and substructure
and including the Ground floor) 10
6 Depth of foundation from ground level 2.2 m
7 Plinth height 800 mm
8 Column size 400 mm x 400 mm
9 Beam size 230 mm x 400 mm
10 Thickness of Slab 150 mm
11 Density of concrete 25 kN/m3
12 Live load on roof 1.5 kN/m2
13 Live load on floors 3 kN/m2
14 Floor finish 1 kN/m2
15 Brick wall on peripheral beams 230 mm
16 Brick wall on internal beams 115 mm
17 Density of brick wall 20 kN/m3
18 Internal Plaster 12mm
19 External Plaster 15mm
20 Density of Plaster 18 kN/m3
For the present study following values for seismic analysis are assumed. The values are assumed on the basis of
reference steps given in IS 1893-2002 and 13920-1993 and IS 456:2000. Since Nagpur or vidarbha is less vulnerable to
earthquakes, for this present study assigning zone III for moderate seismic intensity as stated in table 2 of IS 1893 – 2002.
TABLE 2
SEISMIC PARAMETERS
1 Zone factor for zone III 0.16 (Table 2, P.16)
2 Importance factor for office building 1 (Table 6, P.18)
3 Special Reinforced Concrete Moment resisting Frame
4 SMRF is a moment resisting frame detailed to provide ductile behavior and comply with the
requirements of 13920-1993
5 Response reduction factor for ductile
shear wall with SMRF
5
6 Type of soil Medium (Type II)
8 Damping percent 5 % (0.05)
9 Thickness of Shear wall 230 mm
10
1
Brick infill panel building type.
Zone factor for zone III 0.16 (Table 2, P.16)
A) Plan and Model Generated for Problem Statement
From the values mentioned in the problem definition three models are generated to study the behavior of earthquake
resistant structure. Figure 4.1 shows plan of the structure generated in STAADPro. Following are the models generated.

1) Model 1: Simple structure withoutany shear wall. Figure 4.2 illustrates this model. In this model all the parameters are
considered for designing the structure as earthquake proof as per IS1893:2003.
2) Model 2: Structure with symmetrical shear wall on opposite side of building on outer walls of structure concentrically
located. Figure 4.3 illustrates the model. In this model all the parameters are same as model 1 also parameters of shear
wall areadded for design of shear wall as per IS 13920:1993.
3) Model 3: Structure with symmetrical concrete column flanges (like shear wall with opening). Since shear wall starts
from foundation level, in this type of model the structure up to plinth level has solid shear wall and the structure above
plinth level have column flanges. Figure-1 illustrates the type. In this model all parameters are same as model 2 but only
difference is the shear walls provided are having opening seems like flanges to the column.
B) Calculation of Load and Earthquake related Parameters:-
Dead load of slab = (0.15 x 1 x 25) = 3.75 kN/m2 Dead load of Outer Brick wall can be calculated as =
(0.23) x (2.65) x 20 = 12.19 kN/m2
Dead load of Inner Brick wall can be calculated as = (0.115) x (2.65) x 20 = 6. 1kN/m2
Dead load of Parapet wall can be calculated as = (0.23) x (1) x (20) = 4.6kN/m2
Dead load of Plaster for outer walls can be calculated as = (0.015+0.012) x (2.65) x 18 = 1.3 kN/m2
Dead load of Plaster for inner walls and parapet wall can be calculated as = (0.012+0.012) x (2.65) x 18 = 1.15kN/m2
Total Dead Load for outer walls = 12.19 +1.3 = 13.49 (considering 85% of weight due to openings) i.e 11.46 kN/m2 Total
Dead Load for inner walls = 6.1+1.15 = 7.25 kN/m2 (Least openings are there in Partitions)
Total Dead Load for Parapet walls = 4.6 +1.15 = 5.75 kN/m2
1. Seismic Weight Calculation: As per the norms given in the IS 1893:2003 for live load greater than 3, 50% of the live
load is added for seismic weight. And for live load up to and less than 3, 25% live load is added for seismic weight.
Total Seismic weight floors = 3.75 + (0.25 x3) = 4.5 kN/m2.
II. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The equivalent static method or seismic coefficient method had been used to find the design lateral forces along the storey
in X and Z direction of the building since the building is unsymmetrical. A 10 storied RCC building in zone III is modelled
using STAADPro software and the results are computed. The configurations of all the models are discussed in previous.
Three models were prepared based on different configuration, Model 1 for non-shear wall type of multi-storeyed building,
Model 2 for same building with Shear wall type and model 3 for same building with Column flange type. These models are
analysed and designed as per the specifications of Indian Standard codes IS 456, IS 875, IS 1893, &IS 13920.
A. Lateral Force and Base Shear
Elements or members of building should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of design lateral force.
STAADPro gives the lateral force distribution at various levels and at each storey level. Lateral force of earthquake is
predominant force which needs to be resisted for any structure to be earthquake resistant. The equivalent static method
had been adopted to find out the lateral force in STAADPro. The Table No.3 shows Storey height and the distribution of the
lateral force and the base shear at each storey level in X-direction. The average percentage decrease in lateral force for
model 2 and model 3, when compared with model 1, shows that there is approximate decrease of 10% for both themodels.
In this project storey height versus Lateral force in X-Direction and it is evident that the lateral force for Model 1, Model 2,
and Model 3 differs from each other storey wise. It is seen that for a particular model as the storey height increases the
lateral force also increases except in the parapet level since the loads on the parapet level are less. Lateral force or storey
shear for model 1, model 2 and model 3 are different and approximately 10% decrease in lateral force for model 2 and
model 3 is seen at each storey level when compared with model 1.

Somewhere table shows base shear values at different floor level along X- Direction. Base shear is cumulative of lateral force
from top storey to bottom storey. Thus the value of bottom floor shear is maximum and value of top storey shear is
minimum. Introducing shear wall and column flange shows approximate 10% reduction in the base shear for model 2 and
model 3 when compared with model 1. The values for each storey is cumulative of top storey thus it differs from storey to
storey.
After introducing shear walls the base shear is reduced by 10%. It is evident that the base shear and lateral force reduces
after introducing shear wall butthere is reductionof base shear even for the column flange type model (Model 3).
A table shows Storey height and the distribution of the lateral force and the base shear at each storey level in Z-direction.
The percentage decrease in lateral force for model 2 and model 3, when compared with model 1, shows that there is
approximate decrease of 10% for both the models, on each storey.
A figure shows a graph of storey height Vs Lateral force in Z-Direction and it is evident that the lateral force for Model 1,
Model 2, and Model 3 differs from each other storey wise. It is seen that for a particular model as the storey height increases
the lateral force also increases except in the parapet level since the loads on the parapet level are less. Lateral force or
storey shear for model 1, model 2 and model 3 are different and approximately 10% decrease in lateral force for model 2
and model 3 is seen at each storey level when compared with model1.
A Table shows base shear values at different floor level along “Z”- Direction. Base shear is cumulative of lateral force from top
storey to bottom storey. Thus the value of bottom floor shear is maximum and value of top storey shear is minimum.
Introducing shear wall and column flange shows approximate 10% reduction in the base shear for model 2 and model 3
when compared with model 1. The values for each storey is cumulative of top storey thus it differs from storey to storey.
A figure shows base shear along “Z”-Direction storey wise. After introducing shear walls the base shear is reduced by 10%.
It is evident that the base shear and lateral force reduces after introducing shear wall but there is reduction of base shear
even for the column flange type model (Model 3).
B. Shear Force and Bending Moment calculation
Maximum shear force and bending moment in any building is responsible for the stability of the members of any structure.
The Shear force and bending moment are useful parameters for design of any member of the structure. The least the
moment the lesser will be the cost ofstructure.
It is clear that when the model 2 and model 3 are compared with model 1, there is percentage decrease in shear force. Using
graphical representation of the table.
From the table it is clear that when the model 2 and model 3 are compared with model 1, there is percentage decrease in
shear force in “Y”- direction and increase in “Z”-direction. Also for model 3 there is reduction in bending moment
percentage than in case of model 3. Thus it shows that model 3 is most preferable.
C. Maximum Node Displacement
Node displacement of any structure represents the deflection of the structure whenever any load or load combination is
applied on the structure. Since the building is analyzed for Earthquakeresistance, displacements in all the three directionsare
shown in Table Maximum displacements in “X”- Direction and “Z”- Direction for load combinations are stated in the table.
III.CONCLUSIONS
Three different models are studied in this present research. A building with moment resisting frame named as model 1, for
the same building shear walls are introduced symmetrically concentrically at outer edge and named as model 2, third type
of model named model 3 is newly introduced as column flange type providing opening for shear wall. STAADPro software
is used for analysis and the results obtained were satisfactory and following are the concluded remarks that can be
established from the results.
A. Lateral force or storey shear at each consecutive storey level for model 1 is moreascomparedto model 2and model
3. Model 3 has least lateral force on consecutive storeys as compared to model 1 and model 2.
B. Approximately on an average 10% lateral force or storey shear is decreased by introducing Shear wall for same
configuration as of model 1. Model 2 and Model 3 have 10% less storey shear as compared to Model 1.

C. Base shear for model 1 is higher than model 2 and model 3. Approximately 10% decrease in base shear is
calculatedafterintroducing shearwall (Model 2)andflange column (model 3).
D. Storey shear and base shear in both thedirections
E. i.e. along X-direction and along Z-direction for model 2 and model 3 are decreased by nearly same amount i.e.
approximately 10% when compared to model 1.
F. Model 2 and model 3 shows 2% - 3% reduction in axial force when compared with Model 1.
G. The parameter shear force shows decrease in X- direction and increase in Y-direction for model 2 and model 3 as
compared to model 1.
H. The parameter of bending moment shows increase in Z-Direction and reduction in Y-direction. For model 2 and
model 3 when compared with model 1.
I. There is a pattern of reduction in node displacement for model 2 and model 3 when compared with model 1. This
briefly states that the building is stiff with shear walls and column flanges. Whereas the model 3 becomes
economical as the concrete is reduced being approximate similar stiffness is acquired due to less consumption of
concrete.
IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I extend my sincerest gratitude to my parents, my friends, my Guides and my well-wishers who had constantly
encouraged me and helped me in all situations whenever needed during this project completion. A special thanks to
PROJECTium, Nagpur.
REFERENCES
1) B. Ramamohana Reddy, M. Visweswara Rao, “Earthquake resistant design of a building using shear wall”. IJMETR,
Volume no: 2 (2015), Issue no: 10,October 2015, ISSN no: 2348-4845.
2) P. P. Chandurkar, Dr. P. S. Pajgade, “Seismic analysis of RCC Building with and without shear wall”. IJMER, Vol.3,
Issue 3, May-june 2013,pp-1805-1810,2013.
3) Manoj S. Medhekar, Sudhir K. Jain, “Seismic behaviour design and detailing of RC shear wall, Part 1: Behaviour and
Strength” . The Indian Concrete Journal, July 1993.
4) Venkata Sairam Kumar.N, Surendra Babu.R, Usha Kranti.J, “ Shear Wall- A Review”. IJIRSET, Vol. 3, Issue 2,
February 2014, ISSN: 2319-8753.
5) Bhruguli H. Gandhi, “Effect of opening on behaviour of shear wall”. IJTRE, Volume 3, Issue 4, December-2015,
ISSN: 2347 – 4718.
6) S. M. Khatami, A. Kheyroddin “The Effect of Flange Thickness on the Behavior of Flanged- Section Shear Walls”.
ELSEVIER, Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2994–3000.
7) Shyam Bhat M, N. A. Premanand Shenoy, Asha U Rao, “Earthquake behaviour of buildings with and without shear
walls”. IOSR-JMCE, e-ISSN: 2278-1684.
8) Vinoth Kumar M, Ramesh B, Senthil Kumaran N.S, “Influence of Shear Wall and Coupling Beam Dimensions on
Seismic Behaviour”. JCHPS Special, Issue 6, November 2016, ISSN: 0974-2115.
9) Vishal A. Itware, Dr. Uttam B. Kalwane, “Effects of Openings in Shear Wall on Seismic Response of Structure”.
IJERA, Vol. 5, Issue 7, (Part - 1) July 2015, pp.41-45, ISSN : 2248-9622
10) S.Saileysh Sivaraja, S. Sengolmurugan, Seismic Behavior of Structures with Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and
Shear Wall (SW) IJTRD, Volume 4(1), Jan-Feb 2017, ISSN: 2394-9333.
11) V. R. Murty, Rupen Goswami, A. R. Vijayanarayanan, Vipul V. Mehta, “Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings”. GSDMA,
Government of Gujarat, September 2012.
12) S.K. Duggal, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Second Edition, 2013, Oxford University Press, ISBN- 0-

19-808352-1
13) IS 13920, (1993), “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Subjected to Seismic Forces,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
14) IS 875 (Part 2):1987, Code of Practice for design loads for buildings and structures, Second revision. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
15) IS 1893:2002 (Part 1), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Fifth revision. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
16) IS 456:2000, Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, Fourth revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

IRJET- A Research on Comparing the Effect of Seismic Waves on Multistoried Buildings with & without Shear Wall and Flanged Concrete Column

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- A Research on Comparing the Effect of Seismic Waves on Multistoried Buildings with & without Shear Wall and Flanged Concrete Column

Similar to IRJET- A Research on Comparing the Effect of Seismic Waves on Multistoried Buildings with & without Shear Wall and Flanged Concrete Column (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- A Research on Comparing the Effect of Seismic Waves on Multistoried Buildings with & without Shear Wall and Flanged Concrete Column